The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-08-24
CAN We LIVE WITHOUT SIN /?
MAN Is A CORRUPT MACHINE.


Editor Press and Banner:
| ask permission to make 4 brief reply 10
the structures on my selinon,ln your paper Oh
last week. ,
IL is an easy matter TO call names and pile
up mass Of words, but neither of these nee
essarily contain argument or help IN aseer-
tanning truth.
The writer objects 10 my saying that the
flesh i'm the text meant the "old man ana
the natural man." These are phrases en-
ployed by Paul to express The evil nature
word "fesh in the text Of my sermon he in.
tends to convey the same idea llOwit Is that
in making this simple statement there is any
play upon words am at n loss 10 perceive.
But he goes on to tell US what Paul does mean
by the word flesh in the text, viz, the love OF
the Galatians for circumcision. He says OF
the Judaism that prevailed among the GnlIn-
tian churches "this was Il lower type OF chris
tianity than Paul preached, and he tells them
1t is the flesh luSting against the spirit" IL IS
certainly putting the thing very mildly 10
calls It "anothcr gospel which is NOT anotll.
err" Judaism and Christianity were different
systems rs opposed to each other as llGhta ana
| darkness.
/ affirm that the word flesh in the text docs
not have the most remote reference to circuin-
cision. In the previous verse iaui says,
walk in the Sprt and ye shall not nI bv the the
| lust of the flesh is shown In the preceding
verse, "if yc bite and devour one another take
heed that ye be not consumed one OF announcer;
| Following the text the apostle tells us wnal
the works of the flesh are in seventeen specl'
fcations. and in all the catalogue there IS no
reference TO circumcision or even TO JUDAISM.
ale (myselD repudiates the IDEA OF lreG
agency on the part OF man altogether anu
makes him corrupt machine by nature. l
accept the last part of this sentence as my pe-
lief. Man is corrupt machine py nniuLe,-S;o =,
corrupt that it can put forth only what IS
morally evil, until renewed by the Holy Splr-
1t. And, indeed. this corruption is not entire.
| ly eliminated from preachers. If the brother
| hoI nj he wOIll
charge contained in the first part OF the sen.
tencc. He knows MS well as he knows any
thing that neither nor any otner oasslhtSSi hnS
such an ad cnptdndunl twang about IT, ana ne
thought that it would SO entirely wither me
into nonentity that the corruption IN hlm,
perfect man as he is, would not let him Keep
it back. All, my good brother, this thing oi
attributing to others sentiments they do not
hold is an old trick and not q very pretty one;
"With this capacity (of intelligent choice
can not any man in obedience to Gods plan
absolutely keep his moral law?" No, an
swer most decidedly. No man has in the past,
does now in the present or will In the future.
In this connection the writer asserts that
there are thousands Of men and women now
who keep Gods law. do not find one such
example in the Bible. never met with one
| in my intercourse with other people. never
read of one we'll auLhenticated instance.
do not believe that such case has ever exist
cd or will ever exist TIL the end OF this dis
pensation. There are people who think they
keep the law OF God, and there are writers
who make such explanations and modifica-
tiOns of keeping the law as TO conslrue II into
perfect holiness These things are not ue,
nicd, but utterly deny that any mere man
has that perfect conformity to God's law
which is true holiness.
There is not Just nan on earth that hoetn ,f r
Lindsay would have the intelligent reader to
apply this Old Testament quotation as an ao'
solute and unexcertiona5le fact; fitting Inc Inc
as true now as when first written. fits as well
now as IL ever did and the fact will he Just as
absolute teen and hc lGn on
lasts SO long. The Old Testament Is as much
a part OF the rule Of faith and practice of
Gods people rs the New Testament. surely
the brother does not mean to teach that be,
cause n thing was written 5000 years ago and
found in the Old Testament 1t is obsolete and
| is not available for instruction.
ale is perfectly holy because ne. he enjoys 1
could not agree about n definition OF holiness.
He believes 1t is enjoying Gods perfect "a
vor. l believe it is absolute conformity TO
Gods law. My definition is based on Scrip
ture teaching, his definition is made to serve
purpose to bolster up the "perfect holiness
doctrine.
The brother has good deal to say Of the
verse in first John, "if we say we hnve no
sim" &c. This has always been an ugly text
for the holiness people and special efforts have
been put forth to oexplain itaway. Ihere Is
one remark made by my opponelt t"l do won; l;
der if DR.. Lindsay thinks any body who viii
| read this passage In its connection and study
1t for ten minutes would believe that 1t refers
in any respect to the impcssibility of mans
| living in this life without committing sin.
This sentence has high sounding air about
It that would sweep every, thing before It,
Unawed, however, by this feature will an
swer the question with most emphatic al
frmative. That Is exactly what itdoes assert.
1t subverts and scatters TO the winds the
whole "perfcct holiness" dension. 1t teaches
"the imposslbility of a mans living IN this
life without committing SIN"
| Brother Martin says further on 1t vindicates
''thc possibility of mans living free from all
| sim" These views are In direct conflict. ]
wish the reader to note carefully these Two
views and also to notice their influence and
relation to the holiness theory. If my view
is correct it destroys completely the theory he
Is defending. If his view is correct 1t takes
away only one of the many arguments array
ed against this theory. The brother reads the
verse in the light of his Interpretation thus,
"If we say we have no sin (whcn we are sin
full in our practice understood) we deceive
ourselves / say this Interpretation in the
parenthesis is not required or warrapted by
any thing said In the context. He Says Its
meaning and force would be taken away II
not so read. Oh no. it has very clear mean-
Ing and tremendous force, but both the
ness doctrine. "If we say that we haye no
| sin" is the perfect holiness people with the
limbning of ihe true divine artist. Whenever
| these words come before our minds, either
read or heard, we can't mistake the people
they are designed to describe. They contain
an accurate and unmiStakable and null
lengthcd portrait Of n certain class OF people.
| No wonder that it takes such mass of expla-
nation and parenthetical incorporation TO
destroy It's meaning and force. say 1t means
lust what it says. aft we say we have no sin"
describes those who pretend to complete sane
tificaton, those who claim that all sin is elm
mated from their natures, those who believe
that they have arrived at such stale of per-
lection that they do not violate any one OF the
| requirements Of Gods "holy and just and
good" law. But that meaning would he too
i bad positively too destructive Of "perfect
holiness" as branch of Christian experience,
so 1t must be explained and interpreted and
dressed up so as to mean Something else. III
that sort of rule Is allowed I'm the interpreta-
| ton of Scripture can, by IT, prove UNIVERSAL
ism or purgatory or future probation or any
other error.
This paraphrase may exhibit the conncc-
ton of the verse under consideration and
bring ont that meaning which Bro Martin
shuts his eyes against. 1t Is fool lish to make
this pretension Of having no sin: Of trying
to work ourselves into the belief before God
or ourselves that we are already perfectly
holy. Why should we do so when by con-
! Tossing our sins God Is ready to forgive them?
| We ought not to hesitate II moment to take
our sins to our Heavenly Father, confess
them, and plead for pardon.-v. o. On tho
other hand, if we cover up our sins and
claim not to have any, we deceive ourselves
and make God liar The meaning of the
i passage Is as clear as the unclnudcd sun at
MONDAY, and II does not mean what the
| Brother says II does.
| I beg leave to introduce brief quotations
| from two commentators. who, as interprctl.
| tors of Scripture, command the respect Of the
whole Church.
Matthew Henry says: "rhc apostle having
supposed that even they of this heavenly
communion have yet their sins proceeds here
to Justify that SuppostIOn, and this he does
by showing the dreadful consequences Of de-
nying il, and that in two particulars.
We must beware of sefdeccit In denying or